RK ARCHIVE - Barack Obama's Transformational Leadership

Note: Where else but Raising Kaine, where only recently I took Obama to task, would it be appropriate to eat my crow? Herein, I reflect on my soul-searching decision to vote for Barack Obama. The tenor of this debate, and the increasing marginalization of John Edwards by both the political establishment and Big Media -- which I simultaneously decry, but haven’t the energy to fight against -- is a disgrace and further evidence of a flawed political system. But I can’t do enough to change it by Virginia Primary Day. I must accept the political realities as I see them. Some may see them differently.

Leadership is the interactive coalescing of a group of people toward a common goal. The leadership I want in my candidate is more than transactional. Transactional leadership involves an exchange of things I want and am willing to give my leadership. I give those things like my vote and perhaps my support, energy, time and money. In exchange, I expect honest representation, the candidate’s remembering whom the candidate really serves while in office, courage under pressure, and honest communication with me the voter. No, I do not think all politicians lie. That’s setting expectations too low. Transformational leadership transcends transactions and reaches a higher level. Its overarching trajectory is toward achieving things together beyond our imagination, beyond those synergy-less individual efforts. With transformational leaders we extend ourselves in vision, imagination, and the strategy and tactics to achieve more than we ever thought possible—together.

Two candidates are, in my opinion, capable of that kind of leadership: John Edwards and Barack Obama. I will vote for Barack Obama. It is not just a Stop Hillary vote; though, admittedly, it is that too. It is also my belief that Barack Obama is much more suited to lead this country than his primary opponent and fellow “front-runner,” Hillary Rodham Clinton. It is impossible to characterize my metamorphosis without explaining a little of how I got here.

The following are my thoughts and mine alone. I do not expect you, dear reader, to agree. I will not push you to agree with me. I will not take you to task. Similarly, I expect Hillary Clinton fans to respect my right to differ. I respect them, if not their candidate any longer. I intend to vote for the nominee of the party. I pray she is not the one. I will save up most of any latent negativity for the GOP, which has savaged the American people in its policies, legislation, and its war on fairness, constitutional governance, representation, the safety net, and more. But I must mention just a few things which have influenced me in the past two weeks.

Despite the Clintons' feigned air of superiority, the “thirty-five years” experience “making change” Hillary claims is actually no better than Barack Obama’s in overall quantity. Much of her adult life, she has been an attorney. Curiously, only John Edwards is criticized for that! In truth, no one should be. We are a nation of laws, and lawyers provide needed service. However, John Edwards and Barack Obama used their service differently from Hillary: Edwards in fighting for the little guy and Obama in fighting for civil rights. Both worked for the public interest to a greater extent unselfishly than did Hillary Rodham Clinton. Additionally, she’s even served on the board of WalMart, a dubious distinction in my view. Her work on the Watergate staff may explain why Nixonian Republicans still hate her and seek revenge. But it does not imbue her with any great advantage, except, perhaps to advise Bill as he faced his own impeachment. I also prefer Obama’s legal service considerably more than I do her corporate law work, or her service on the board of directors of WAL-MART. Sam Walton’s “little lady,” was not really looking out for us.

(It matters whom one thinks will look out for us, matters in the extent to which we believe our president will, when the chips are down, support us or the corporations who seek to destroy the New Deal. Barack Obama has made stronger statements about his opposition to privatizing Social Security than Hillary has.)

Obama sought to bring affordable housing to Chicago neighborhoods and for that, he gets the Clintons' manufactured complaints that Obama’s service was untoward. This scurrilous charge, which I won’t elaborate on, makes me cringe in disbelief that the Clintons would reach so low.

We also are to believe that it’s terrible that Obama wrote an essay about being president when he was five. Does anyone seriously believe the Clintons weren’t coveting the White House at the same early age? We are led to believe that Hillary learned the presidency by osmosis. I doubt Hillary supporters think Laura Bush is similarly “qualified.” Claiming, as some Hillary supporters do, that pillow talk constitutes “experience,” really diminishes the office. (And it's been diminished quite enough under GWB.)

The electorate does not want an endless occupation of Iraq. It does not countenance more wars without end. It has no appetite to put weapons of a nuclear type on the table against Pakistan, or any other country. It does not want war against Iran. And it is unlikely ultimately to entrust one who voted for the war and then claimed she was against it (her ex-president husband even falsely claiming he opposed it from the beginning). She’s gone along to get along.

Is it a Rupert Murdoch infested presidency Hillary will usher in? How can a Democrat dare to partner or rather party-up with Murdouch, as Hillary did when he gave a fundraiser for her? Does she really think he’ll actually support her in the long run? If so, what was the price of her soul? You have to wonder. Furthermore, she is, despite her appearance of being seasoned, too gullible for her own good. That is to say, Obama didn’t take the word of George W. Bush, that Saddam was connected to 9-11. He knew better. Hillary did not. When all is said and done, this is the single most important thing you need to know about Barack Obama. There was ample evidence to repudiate Bush’s claims, if only one looked at the extant press, government reports, and UN website.

Barack Obama dared to think outside the box. He spoke out with courage at the time. And I heard him, thank you Bill and Hill. Barack Obama stands alone among the top-three contenders in opposing the war before it happened. The fact that he didn’t rant, scream, or do a beet-faced Bill Clinton impersonation in the process does not diminish in any way that Barack Obama stood with courage. Furthermore, in doing so, Barack Obama put his US Senate run at risk. He also took real political risk by endorsing Howard Dean for President. Are the Clintons still punishing him for that? Obama’s crucial, unequivolcal and courageous position against the war is history, real history. The facts are unimpeachable, and should not rest in the hands, or poisoned tongue, of our impeached president. (Contrary to what one writer here said, Bill Clinton was impeached. He was however not removed from office by the Senate.) Bill Clinton is angry because we have the temerity to question his spin on his and Hillary’s resume’s.

Barack Obama’s only sin is not conferring fawning deference upon Bill-ary. Our party is filled with people who’d throw their vote for a chance to meet-and-greet Bill. And that’s our loss. I salute their public service. I reject their implicit claim of right of succession. Celeb worship hasn’t been good for America. I voted for and defended Bill and Hillary Clinton for years. But I am done doing so. The persecution of the Clintons by the far right was unfair. I abhorred it then and still do. However, wasting our time defending them against old history (again) won’t get us toward solutions to pervasive problems we face.

The present administration has been one of overwhelming excess, on nearly every front. It has hijacked the economy, built on incredibly reckless deficits. It’s an administration so out-of-control it begs serious analysis and criticism.

And yet, the truth is that excess is a matter of degree. There were excesses during the administration of Bill Clinton as well. I have many more thoughts on this than I can elaborate here -- all the unhelpful things Bill Clinton did for this country. Here are some examples:

--He ushered in (signed) draconian welfare reform with insufficient training and other support for those who'd be abruptly dumped into on-your-ownership.

--Though he added jobs, he also ushered in millions of permanently unemployed, who are not counted any longer. They will be called upon time and again to give their labor for free, to volunteer. There is a word for that.

At the debate this past Monday, an overly aggressive Hillary (and no I am not judging her in harsher terms than males) would not let Obama get a word in and stole his speaking time. Al Gore was dissed (wrongly) for a sigh! This was so much worse.

I have got to ask this, what are Bill and Hillary so afraid of? Are they angry because Barack Obama has the audacity to try to stand in the way of Clinton restoration? Is Barack not genuflecting at the laws of dynasty? Or is it something worse, a display for all to see of how Clintonism works. Does it work in the robo calls, and push polls, the nefarious push-poller making sure to slide in and emphasize the middle name (Hussein). Does it work in the innuendo of whispered and not-so-whispered accusations of election fraud with no proof? Does it proceed like the game of gossip, first a whisper, then another, and then the message is irrevocably warped? Is it in fabrications of record, or taking things out of context? An NPR reporter yesterday asked Obama, “Is this what we can expect from you?” The real question is: Bill and Hillary, is this what we can expect from YOU? Do the Clintons mean to act in their campaigning no better than George W. Bush and Karl Rove? Is this the best they can do with their talents? Or is it something more, corporate ideology and lobbyist rich? Obama has every right, even a duty, to defend himself.

I will not here discuss the whole sordid descent into matters of race. I do not think Bill and Hillary are racists. I do think they are the worst kind of exploiters and wedgers on racial politics. Deliver us from this.

Some here know that I have taken Obama to task for escalating his talk of unity, pre-general election. I really think such talk should await the general election. For now, our candidates must demonstrate that they are not just qualified to be president, but also to conduct their presidential lives in the populist tradition of our best Democratic presidents., though not necessarily the most popular ones. In other words, what will they do with the office? Will they rise to progressive principles, or rather the GOP-warmed over DLC principles that if it’s good for corporate America, it had better be believed good by you and me?

We must simultaneously define a progressive platform while simultaneously working to benefit all Americans, but especially those who haven’t benefited from the economic peaks, that the overly coddled 1% (or 10% depending on the policy) have. We also strive to determine who will take this country to the higher ground it craves, the destiny it must reestablish (following a squandering Bush). I think Barack Obama will take us there.

P.S. Senator Edwards, Ms. Edwards, and Edwards supporters, forgive me for my change of heart. I still hold Edwards in such high regard. He illustrates that you can be tough but humane in the vigorous discussion of the issues we need. I do not expect others to follow my lead. Rather, I hope everyone has the pleasure of voting for one they truly believe will usher in a new era of transcendent politics.

Comments

Kathy (Gordie - 1/25/2008 7:51:48 AM)

I read this. I will not take it to heart, but certainly respect that you can change your mind.

Makes me wonder when the other Edwards supporters change their mind, which way they will go.

(Point Lowell? is this the heart you meant "Edwards Supporters" or did you mean all voters).

Also didn't Kuccinich drop out? Thought I would read where you were after his supporters, Lowell!

Jim Moran to endorse Obama (Lowell - 1/24/2008 6:29:22 PM)

According to Bob Gibson:

Apparently 8th District Rep. Jim Moran, an Alexandria Democrat whose last rural patch of his Northern Virginia district was developed a few decades back, also agrees Obama is the more electable and better presidential choice.
Moran is set to endorse Obama next week prior to the Feb. 12 Virginia Democratic primary, said his brother, Del. Brian J. Moran, D-Alexandria.
Moran has resisted pressure from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi not to endorse Obama, according to a knowledgeable Democratic Party source.

Great move by Rep. Moran, but what's up with Nancy Pelosi? If that's true, I find that VERY disappointing.

Gibson's non-responsive response (jsrutstein - 1/24/2008 10:55:55 PM)

It's nice to see that Mr. Gibson reads the comments posted to his blog.

He even used the comment thread to "report" that a Clinton supporter educated him as to prominent Virginia pols who have endorsed Clinton, and he added a statement from Rep. Moran's spokesperson denying that Moran has already endorsed Obama but wouldn't say what might happen in the near future.

He did respond to my question, and I'm not impressed with his effort to support the reliability of his anonymous source.

"I'm sure that Pelosi has a lot of friends on both sides of the Clinton-Obama fence. I also had not heard prior to this week that she was leaning one way or the other-and a bid to keep someone from coming out for Obama does not automatically imply the Speaker has joined any camp. She may want fellow party leaders to hold their fire."

When a figure reportedly much closer to Pelosi than Moran endorses Obama, and Democratic insiders go on the record speculating that Miller wouldn't have endorsed Obama without Pelosi's at least tacit blessing, and no one is reporting that Pelosi exerted any pressure on Miller not to endorse Obama, it's hard to believe an anonymous source who claims that Pelosi pressured Moran not to endorse Obama.

Yes to Obama (bigforkgirl - 1/24/2008 6:40:29 PM)

I agree totally with your comments, and they mirror my evolution in thinking as well. I read both of Obama's books and sense the real deal here-yes of course he's a politician, AND he has worked for real change, both before his political days and after. I totally agree that he has the possibility of leading transformational change in this country, and also around the world. I am also mature enough politically to realize one doesn't fall in love with a candidate, nor expect the perfect campaign.

Hillary is too cautious by far; I've seen no evidence of leaping ahead, rather than incrementally moving, or worse, caving into the R camp thinking.

I am one of those people who sent MORE money to Obama after the Nevada caucuses and SC debate, and I will continue to do so.

And lastly, Bill's participation in the campaign reminds me of his betrayals, of the party and the nation. I worry that his boundaries are so porous that he may think it is HIS campaign. He needs to shut up the negatives, only promote his wife's positives and seek the background. He's been on TV as much as she has, or more. Just who IS the candidate here? He's hurting her campaign, and the party.

You hit the nail on the head... (TurnPWBlue - 1/24/2008 6:40:38 PM)

For the last few weeks there was something about the Clinton strategy that just seemed so familiar to me (and not in a good way). I kept trying to put my finger on it, but you've nailed it. The current tactics and strategy the Clinton machine seems to be using look like they are taken straight from the Karl Rove playbook. Mr. Clinton's recent statements and actions are unbecoming of a former President of the United States and, for me, put a tarnish on his legacy. In the end, so many of the characterizations of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" are actually apparent in reality. Were they always there or is this a matter of Bill and Hillary living up to (lowered) expectations? I think years of being skewered and lambasted by the right has corrupted the Clintons' vision.

For me, both Obama and Edwards offer a vision of hope for tomorrow. In 2004, I supported John Edwards. I would have been happy to see him doing better in 2008 even while I switched to the Obama camp (shortly after his convention keynote in '04).

We, as Democrats, need to pull ourselves above the fray. Let the Republican Party practice the politics of division and derision. There is no need for us to sink to that level. There was a time that campaigning for office was seen as a noble endeavor undertaken for the noble purposes of public service. Oh, to see some of that return.

Very Thoughtful Diary (HisRoc - 1/24/2008 6:48:35 PM)

However, I think that you somewhat distort how Clinton, Obama, and Edwards put their legal educations to work. True, Clinton became a corporate lawyer after serving on the Watergate committee staff. Edwards, on the other hand, has been an ambulance-chasing trial lawyer almost since day one, after spending his first year out of law school clerking for a Federal judge--a career move that puts most attorneys on the partnership fast-track. As for Edwards fighting for the litttle guy, he did so by pioneering product liability and medical malpractice suits, establishing new precedents in liability case law. Along with doctors and non-profit hospitals, not exactly the greedy and evil corporations his campaign would have you believe were his targets, he also sued the American Red Cross three times.

In the process, Edwards amassed tens of millions of dollars in legal fees and his reported net worth today is approximately $30M. In 2006 alone, he earned $1.2M, including $480,000 as an employee of a New York hedge fund--you know those same hedge funds that enjoy the huge income tax loop holes that the Democrats are trying to close.

I'm sorry. John Edwards is many things, but selfless hero of the poor and down-trodden isn't one of them. I would never favorably compare his legal career with that of Barrack Obama, or even that of Hillary Clinton.

BTW, I have several lawyers in my extended family and not a single doctor, just in case you are wondering if that is prejudicing my opinion of trial lawyers in general.

Not So (HisRoc - 1/24/2008 10:54:16 PM)

I have no problem with trial lawyers. When my wife suffered a fractured kneecap in an auto accident caused by a reckless driver, we fired the first lawyer on the case because he wasn't aggressive enough. As to my the lawyers in my family, they practice criminal defense, family relations, and environmental law.

Incompetent doctors and tainted products from China are not how John Edwards made his fortune. He practiced what I call Gotcha Law. In essence, he invented new liability standards where none existed before. The three suits against the American Red Cross are cases in point. He sued on behalf of people who had become HIV-positive because of HIV-infected blood. The ARC settled privately, even though at the time that the blood bank transfusions were made the HIV epidemic had not yet been recognized in this country, nor had the medical community discovered that HIV could be transmitted through blood products.

Many, but not all, of Edwards' lawsuits on product liability follow the same rationale: if someone's actions lead to consequences that could not be reasonably foreseen they are nonetheless legally liable. He has been a principal contributor to a trend that has made the United States the single most litigious country in the world. Today if you do something incredibly stupid, such as mowing the grass while bare-footed, you and your immediate family can become independently wealthy while the rest of us pay more money for our lawn mower. Bullshit.

From another Old Soldier.

HisRoc, (KathyinBlacksburg - 1/25/2008 10:33:51 AM)

Thanks very much for your compliment. However, I do not agree with your statements about John Edwards. It's funny how many folks act as though ordinary citizens are not allowed their day in court. The legal process is undermined by those shouting "Torte reform" or "You know he's guilty (before trial)."

There are corruptions in every system, including the legal system. But John Edwards did fight to get companies to fix small-change (in one case a $5 improvement on a pool drain would save the health and lives of children). But the company wouldn't fix it, until John Edwards forced the issue. He fought for justice AND a remedy so more children wouldn't have their intestines sucked right out of them. Sorry, I line up with John Edwards. Too many companies won't care about injuries and death from their products without someone holding them accountable. John Edwards did a good thing here. And I won't join in on the vilification of him.

Doctors are getting the shaft in the insurance company and hospital-driven health care system. But it's spouting the GOP talking points to suggest that lawyers seeking a remedy for their injured clients are the problem. Most cases, the overwhelming majority don't approach the huge (and ridiculous figures) some juries award.

Trial lawyers are champions of the little guys (Hugo Estrada - 1/25/2008 12:43:00 PM)

This is a fact: big corporations spend millions retaining lawyers. If there weren't lawyers willing to take up cases on contingency, most people who have been wronged by corporations wouldn't even be able to file a law suit, much less pursuit it.

Contingency lawyers may win big settlements, or they may not. They are risking not getting paid at all.

Most of the anti-lawyer propaganda is fueled by the right to deny poor and middle class citizens the right to file civil suits.

Unless we have just agreed that only the rich and corporations have a right to legal representation, we shouldn't insult those lawyers who gave up a sure fat check to defend regular guys.

Kathy, I agree with you 99% - the 1% is that I think Edwards can win in Denver. (Tom Counts - 1/24/2008 7:07:12 PM)

Someday soon I must meet you face-to-face. We met via e-mail and Henry confirmed to you that I am who I claim to be. That is a hard-liner 24x7 Webb volunteer and a Va. Tech. grad as is my twin brother who lives in Christiansburg with his wife Barbara who are both Webb volunteers and strong Dems.

My real point with my 99%, not 100%, agreement with you is that I firmly believe that the nonination is within John's reach. Here's my logic. Remember when Steve Jardin told Jim Webb that his chances of being elected U.S. Senator awere about 15% and Jim said he liked those odds and said "let's do it" ? Well, John rigtht now has about 25% of the pledged delegates and I have no doubt that he will gain at least 15% of the Super Tues. delegates, putting Va. very much in play on 12 Feb. Everyone I know who is an Edwards volunteer is dedicated to work around the clock to asure that John gets well over the 15% vote required to gain his proportional % of Va. delegates - which not so coincidentally equates to the 15% odds that Webb said looked good to him.

looking at the bigger picture, I've calculated and re-calculated the percentage of delegates that each of the top three might have by the time of the convention in Denver, assuming best case and worst case for each candidate, and I can't see any way that either Clinton or Obama can have a majority of pledged delegates by that time, and therefore even considering super delegates I can't see how anyone will have enough votes to win on the 1st ballot. I don't like the term "compromise candidate" but when all pledged delegates have been released I believe that many will go for Edwards for reasons that you and I probably agree on. For sure, he is imminently electable, has not offended supporters of either the Obama or Clinton camps and would certainly be able to unite the country and begin the healing process.

I've made this comment much longer than I'd intended, so I'll close with a brief and simple thought: We proved in 2006 that we truly can nominate and elect a candidate who will perform as our ideals demand. John Edwards talks the talk and walks the walk of a great man named Jim Webb for whom I dedicated nine months of my life to get elected. We did it then for and with Jim and we can surely do the same with and for John Edwards.

God bless America. In His wisdom He has blessed us with superb Presidential candidates.

T.C.

How would Senator Webb campaign? (TMSKI - 1/24/2008 8:27:34 PM)

If you look back at some of the major editorials about the Jim Webb campaign one stands out that was published in the Washington Post. It was titled "Victory of the Non-Pol?" The piece came after Jim's Fairfax Chamber of Commerce debate ... you know the one where George Allen discovered his Jewish heritage.

Anyhow in that debate Jim actually said in the Grand Scheme of things being a Senator wasn't at the top of his "bucket list" to paraphrase. But what was written was just how unconventional the Webb candidacy was and we here at RK can really savor that in its entirety. Hell Lowell's even got a book coming out about that race (along with noted author Jim Webb as well).

Here's the deal. During the Webb campaign in a phone call with Jessica Vanden Berg I talked about the Jim Webb campaign as being a "movement". She was a little uncomfortable with that view (or sentiment) and said "Movements are supposed to win". She was right about that. They are suppose to win and fortunately Webb did win. True to his word Jim Webb has been outstanding as a Senator .... how sweet it is!!

The Obama campaign started out in a very risky fashion I think. It relied on Grassroots primarily and took the lead on the "Change" movement. It correctly founded its campaign as a MOVEMENT of HOPE. A risky proposition because hey you all .... movements are suppose to win!!!

The Clinton campaign on the other hand, worked towards the presidency in a much more "corporate" (pac money) old school fashion. They have run into (and got a wake call in Iowa) this grassroots "hope movement". They want to co-op the Change thing but they just aren't there. They want the White House too badly. Unlike Jim Webb it's the only thing on their priority list and I find that troubling.

Thanks for your post Kathy .... you really ought to be writing a book. Cheers.

Hello from VA Beach (cdo - 1/24/2008 8:28:03 PM)

I started out this primary season being highly impressed with the field of choices. Nothing that has happened since has changed my mind. I still think Edwards, Obama and Clinton are all smart and capable leaders, and whoever gets the nomination will have my vote come the general.
But in too many posts on too many blogs have I seen Obama supporters threatening to stay home in November if Clinton wins. A strategy I'm sure Karl Rove would heartily approve of.
The future make up of the Supreme Court for the next 25-30 years is at stake here. So are your civil rights and a little thing called Habeas Corpus. Every single thinking adult in this country should be lined up to vote in November. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
Edwards, Obama and Clinton can all do the job that needs to be done, though they have different strengths and bring different talents to the table.
If you aren't prepared to support the party's nominee, elected by your fellow democrats, then your commitment to your values is as shallow as your reasoning.

Dead On Point (HisRoc - 1/24/2008 9:04:56 PM)

Edwards: ambulance-chasing trial lawyer who made millions of dollars at the expense of consumers by inventing new product liability law. Now re-invents himself as the selfless defender of the down-trodden.
Clinton: self-entitled dynasty candidate with baggage ranging from the Rose Law firm billing records to the Chicago commodity exchange futures contracts. Now re-invents herself as the agent of change in Washington.
And Obama supporters are supposed to vote for one of them just because they carry the Democratic nomination, a nomination that they could very well wind up stealing in Denver through back-room deal-making?

I don't think so.

Rose Law Firm billing records (Greg - 1/24/2008 9:56:57 PM)

The point about the Rose Law Firm billing records is important -- since Republicans are going to use the issue of her dishonesty against her in the general election campaign if she's the nominee.

I sympathize with the Clintons' frustration at being subjected to the Whitewater fishing expedition, which never showed any wrongdoing on their part. BUT, there is no escaping the fact that she lied to the special prosecutor about not knowing the location of the missing billing records tying her to work for Jim McDougal. I mean, the billing records were found under the bed in the presidential living quarters by maintenance staff moving the furniture around -- it doesn't pass the laugh test to claim she didn't know they were there.

Then, Greg, if she was willing to commit a felony by lying to the special prosecutor (aznew - 1/24/2008 10:07:10 PM)

can you please explain why she would then produce the records later on when it would have been just as easy to burn them in a White house fireplace at the time of her lie and completely avoid detection.

I mean, your scenario is comical. Hillary Clinton committed a felony, and then stashed the evidence that could prove it under a bed in the White House living quarters.

Also, can you please explain why she would lie in the first place. Her billable hours on Madison Guaranty were pretty minimal.

I used to practice law, and if you asked me about a client 15 years in the past that I had billed 40 hours on, I probably wouldn't remember. She probably billed 1,500 to 2,000 hours per year at the Rose Law Firm.

P.S. Ken Starr was not a Special Prosecutor (who is in the DOJ), but an Independent Prosecutor, who was separate from the DOJ and appointed under a separate statute that no longer exists.

Voters can be fickle . . . (JPTERP - 1/25/2008 12:56:37 AM)

and trust does matter.

The Supreme Court argument is always the strongest one for voting the party line in a presidential year. I think that anyone who decides to vote another way, or to sit home has to take your argument into consideration.

If a person though has serious reservations about supporting a candidate, there are other ways that they can help the party this election cycle -- even in reference to the Supreme Court nominee. We are likely to have a very good pick-up opportunity in the Senate as well as made even one or two House seats -- notwithstanding who the party presidential nominee. The person can still do volunteer work and cast a vote for statewide, or local Democratic candidates this election cycle.

The other side of this is that independent voters and party leaners will vote for the candidate first, and the party label second. This is always the case. e.g. I'm sure if John Warner had not withstood a nomination challenge a few years back that quite a few voters might have sat out, or crossed over rather than supporting Warner's GOP primary opponent. This is just part of the reality in having an electorate where 20% of the electorate can swing either direction depending on which candidate they find most appealing.

Former Labor Sec. Robert Reich (Lowell - 1/24/2008 10:05:42 PM)

totally goes off on Bill Clinton:

I write this more out of sadness than anger. Bill Clinton's ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former President, his legacy, or his wife's campaign. Nor are they helping the Democratic party. While it may be that all is fair in love, war, and politics, it's not fair - indeed, it's demeaning - for a former President to say things that are patently untrue (such as Obama's anti-war position is a "fairy tale") or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former President is himself doing it. Meanwhile, the attack ads being run in South Carolina by the Clinton camp which quote Obama as saying Republicans had all the ideas under Reagan, is disingenuous...

I can't wait to read the comments telling us that former Clinton Administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich is not a real Democrat or has a pathological hatred for the Clinton or whatever other nonsense...

Well, he is very short (aznew - 1/24/2008 10:56:28 PM)

so maybe that makes him hostile.

Anyway, Lowell, as I have been doing, I challenge Reich on his facts. All his self-aggrandizing blog post tells me is that he is not paying close attention to the race. Perhaps he feels a need to get on TV and opine.

Specifically,

1. Isn't Obama's record on the war is open for debate. Yes, he opposed it rhetorically, but when he could have counted with his vote, where was he? I understand the politics of his situation that caused him to vote that way, but the meme of Obama as an aggressive opponent of the war is arguably untrue, contrary to Reich's assertion.

2. How many times do we have to visit the issue of race in this campaign. Talk about insinuations. The Clintons are not racists. Look, at worst, the truth of the matter is that both sides are trying to use race to their advantage while at the same time denying that they are doing so. But the more I think about it, the more I think Bill Clinton is right that this particular dispute has been nursed along by the MSM.

3. Perhaps it is technical, but Reich slightly mischaractertizes Hillary's position in the radio ad. In fact, the only "quoting" the do of Obama in the ad is playing a tape of his own words.

So let's practice what Obama preaches (Kindler - 1/24/2008 11:09:03 PM)

Kathy, I agree with you on both the points that Obama is impressive in many ways and that the Clintons have really been lowering themselves recently in their attacks on him. However, I don't think that the answer to attack politics is more attack politics -- particularly when it's Democrats against Democrats. You've done a good job of dredging up most everything bad one could say about the Clintons, but frankly to the point of unfairness.

For example:
- You said Clinton's deficit reduction was partly based on borrowing from Social Security. So what administration in recent history has not borrowed from Social Security? Actually, by creating huge surpluses, he gave SS more of a chance than it has had in years -- until, of course, Bush gave all of our money away to the wealthy.
- You also didn't mention many positive accomplishments like the Earned Income Tax Credit.
- You labelled Hillary as strictly a corporate lawyer, without mentioning her pathbreaking work for children and their rights.

Those who boost Obama and his positive message should live up to the positivity of that message. We've seen enough bad examples over the last two millenia of people using Jesus's positive message as an excuse to just attack people who happen to be perceived as playing on a different team.

So if you're for unity, let's make it a reality, not just a slogan.

Hi, Kindler, (KathyinBlacksburg - 1/25/2008 10:40:45 AM)

Many of us have been biting our tongues, trying hard to not trash the Clintons. But THEY have caused people to come forward and say what's on their mind. And say it we must. Otherwise, Bill and Hilary will just keep it up and they are destroying the party. Actually, they'll probably keep it up anyway.

I am fully aware of the accomplishments of Bill Clinton, those real and those exaggerated. I spent most of his term (and thereafter when Al Gore ran) singing his praises. It is upon further reflection and the benefit of time that I strongly believe his policies mostly need moderating. Except for a couple of hot-button social issues, he was more conservative than most people imagine.

Well (aznew - 1/25/2008 11:00:13 AM)

If the Clinton's have caused "people to come forward and say what's on their mind," I think that's a good thing.

You feeling are obviously sincere, but I think what Kindler was touching upon (and I don't know Kindler from Adam -- this is just my interpretation) is that your description of the Clinton record is incomplete and unfair.

As for your overall interpretation of the Clinton record, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I happen to disagree with you, but as you say you're not trying to convince anyone, I'll respect that and do the same.

Respectfully, I do think accuracy and context is important, though.

isn't interesting (Alter of Freedom - 1/25/2008 2:32:41 PM)

I love how certain party members and bloggers for HRC attempt to exploit the record of Obama for voting "present" in the legislature and then here in Virginia the entire (D) delegation in the General Assembly on the House side determine it is better not to vote at all on HB852 where a (D) delegate proposed addressing "collective bargaining" for city and state employees.....I guess the entire Democratic delegation just voted "present" did they not leaving one of their own swinging in the wind. Disturbing given the criticism some Virginia bloggers have levied against Obama.

from the NY Times endorsement of Hillary Clinton: (Chris Guy - 1/24/2008 11:59:04 PM)

As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband's administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton's overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)

Thanks, Anon... (KathyinBlacksburg - 1/25/2008 3:51:35 PM)

Right back at ya (i.e., you are one of my favorite bloggers). I honor you for hanging in there. As I have said recently, I have only ever changed my mind at the last minute in a a presidential this one time (changed it in a governor's race when I was very young). Otherwise, I believe in studying first, then deciding and sticking with your candidate so as not to yield to manipulation.

It's just the circumstances now...

But, I give you a lot of credit. And I still love John Edwards.